Wow. His lack of getting it is astounding.
IMO he gets it, mostly, his real problem is the same one most everyone else has, the belief that fiat currency issued by state or quasi-state central banks are any more "real" than Bitcoin. The only reality or value it has is acceptance by both creditors and debtors and the issuer. And Bitcoin at least has the same opportunity to garner that acceptance as every other currency before it has had.
Bitcoin does have the problem of adoptibility, acceptance, and volatility, but so does every other fiat currency that's starting out. And of course, anyone with a computer, smartphone and internet access could use Bitcoin if they wish. And the "fiat" portion is controlled by pure free market economics, and the Bitcoin algorithm, which does represent at least some actual value store in terms of "work" done by the mining computers and the transaction handlers in the peer-to-peer network.
That still doesn't mean Bitcoin won't fail, and could suffer a collapse of trust, or over-exuberance. However, it does expose the fact that 99% of the criticisms of Bitcoin are really just ones of perception. It's like the same kind of fear that CCW and armed self-defense generates in people, because they have an emotional investment, whether they realize it or not, in collective physical security. Just change out "collective physical security" with collective banking/currency security, and it's the same thing.
While concerns over the safety and security of Bitcoin are valid, it's peer-reviewed by the world if it cares to, and I don't see the Fed Reserve opening it's books for audit, even to Congress. Every time there's a hack, or some .gov siezes the latest iteration of the Silk Road, Bitcoin can be improved, holes closed, security tightened. Most of the nay-saying is still akin to the taxi drivers rioting/striking over Uber and Lyft.
The criticisms that speculating on Bitcoin is very risky? Well... duh.
